5 ms·

The Shoenfeld/ASIA syndrome hypothesis is fairly new, quite controversial, and so far more or less unsupported by large scale science. It's worth discussing in

The Shoenfeld/ASIA syndrome hypothesis is fairly new, quite controversial, and so far more or less unsupported by large scale science. It's worth discussing in reasoned environments. Citing it like you do here amounts to an antivax conspiracy theory. Stop it.

linuxftw 6y ago
It's a conspiracy theory to suggest that some vaccines or their components may contribute to the onset of auto immune diseases? No, it's a hypothesis. What makes it a 'conspiracy theory' is that the CDC and other medical bodies are failing to do any conclusive studies on the use of adjuvants (and vaccines generally) and how they relate to autoimmune disorders. From [1] > Further research is encouraged into the direct associations between vaccines and autoimmune conditions, and the biological mechanisms behind them. I guess this study is saying there's a reasonable hypothesis and further research should be done. Predictably, any scrutiny of vaccine safety is met with calls of 'conspiracy theory.' [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607155/
- arcticbull 6y ago
  > What makes it a 'conspiracy theory' is that the CDC and other medical bodies are failing to do any conclusive studies on the use of adjuvants (and vaccines generally) and how they relate to autoimmune disorders. There's that conspiracy theory again. Vaccines are definitively, unequivocally safe. So are adjuvants. Juts so we're on the same page common adjuvants include aluminum hydroxide (which numerous studies since the 1970s have shown a lack of adverse effects) and paraffin oil (in use from 400BCE). Vaccines generally are studied unbelievably closely, in no small part because of the unwarranted attention they've been receiving, wait for it, from conspiracy theorists. It's like aspartame.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > There's that conspiracy theory again. Vaccines are definitively, unequivocally safe. So are adjuvants. So weird that I cite a study that says we need more investigation, and you just dismiss me like a crackpot based on no evidence whatsoever.
    - newacct583 6y ago
      You cited a study that showed no effect from adjuvants in vaccines in an unrelated discussion about covid and diabetes, in an attempt to start an argument where, at best, your position amounts to "we need more investigation". That's why you're being dismissed.
    - jjoonathan 6y ago
      Studies always say we need more investigation and always have imperfections that could be improved upon. It's about 1000000x easier to imagine a possible problem than to devise and carry out a series of experiments (or even simply analyze results) that genuinely assess whether the possible problem is, in fact, a problem. You are doing the former. Scientific consensus reflects the latter.
      - linuxftw 6y ago
        Feel free to actually read what I linked, and then respond with reasons why their conclusions are invalid. When we're talking about safety trials, there's all sorts of interesting ways to invalidate the results. Like, do the efficacy trials (trials showing the antibody response of a given vaccine) utilize the same batch, randomly selected, with the safety trials? What if adjuvants are 10 times higher or lower in one trial than the next? Are there maximum safe doses established for these ingredients? Are doses beyond the safe dose linked to any autoimmune conditions? What percentage of the maximum safe dose is typically present in a given vaccine? Were the adjuvants sourced or created via the same process in the same facility to the same specification in each of the trials? Are those same production facilities being utilized today? Is there any industry oversight into the conformity of vaccines matching their stated ingredients and no other contaminants? These are all really hard questions. I don't believe the regulatory agencies are doing most of that. I believe it's an FAA/Boeing self-certify situation. You probably didn't hear about how HHS hasn't been performing the safety studies mandated by law. We also know that previous vaccines that are no longer in use have been known to cause autoimmune disorders. It's not scientific fantasy. Edit (Since I can't reply to child): Nobody's talking about LD50. We're talking about how much of an ingredient is safe in a vaccine. It's no stretch to conclude that if X amount of some substance causes an increase in an immune response, to say that Y amount would be harmful, up to and including inducing an autoimmune problem. Since we also know there is a causative relationship between vaccines and autoimmune disorders, then it's fair to investigate why. Unfortunately, we're left here to speculate on the internet. No amount of criticism can be levied towards any vaccine or component of a vaccine, because the authorities haven't taken the initiate to actually study any of this information. Most people assume, naively that they have, but unfortunately, they haven't. When called out, like child comment, it's washed away with "Can't prove a negative." Right.
  - black6 6y ago
    > Vaccines are definitively, unequivocally safe. Then why does this exist: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      The first paragraph answers your question: > Vaccines save lives by preventing disease. > Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines. > In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction. Unequivocally safe and effective != risk free. Everything has risks, and yes, sometimes you need to compensate people. My house is safe, but I still have insurance.
      - chasd00 6y ago
        wouldn't "Unequivocally safe" imply risk free? ..or at least health risk free?
lifeisstillgood 6y ago
For those, like me, unaware of ASIA syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune/inflammatory_syndrome_induced_by_adjuvants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune/inflammatory_syndro...

linuxftw 6y ago

It's a conspiracy theory to suggest that some vaccines or their components may contribute to the onset of auto immune diseases? No, it's a hypothesis. What makes it a 'conspiracy theory' is that the CDC and other medical bodies are failing to do any conclusive studies on the use of adjuvants (and vaccines generally) and how they relate to autoimmune disorders. From [1] > Further research is encouraged into the direct associations between vaccines and autoimmune conditions, and the biological mechanisms behind them. I guess this study is saying there's a reasonable hypothesis and further research should be done. Predictably, any scrutiny of vaccine safety is met with calls of 'conspiracy theory.' [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607155/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5607155/

arcticbull 6y ago
> What makes it a 'conspiracy theory' is that the CDC and other medical bodies are failing to do any conclusive studies on the use of adjuvants (and vaccines generally) and how they relate to autoimmune disorders. There's that conspiracy theory again. Vaccines are definitively, unequivocally safe. So are adjuvants. Juts so we're on the same page common adjuvants include aluminum hydroxide (which numerous studies since the 1970s have shown a lack of adverse effects) and paraffin oil (in use from 400BCE). Vaccines generally are studied unbelievably closely, in no small part because of the unwarranted attention they've been receiving, wait for it, from conspiracy theorists. It's like aspartame.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > There's that conspiracy theory again. Vaccines are definitively, unequivocally safe. So are adjuvants. So weird that I cite a study that says we need more investigation, and you just dismiss me like a crackpot based on no evidence whatsoever.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    You cited a study that showed no effect from adjuvants in vaccines in an unrelated discussion about covid and diabetes, in an attempt to start an argument where, at best, your position amounts to "we need more investigation". That's why you're being dismissed.
  - jjoonathan 6y ago
    Studies always say we need more investigation and always have imperfections that could be improved upon. It's about 1000000x easier to imagine a possible problem than to devise and carry out a series of experiments (or even simply analyze results) that genuinely assess whether the possible problem is, in fact, a problem. You are doing the former. Scientific consensus reflects the latter.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      Feel free to actually read what I linked, and then respond with reasons why their conclusions are invalid. When we're talking about safety trials, there's all sorts of interesting ways to invalidate the results. Like, do the efficacy trials (trials showing the antibody response of a given vaccine) utilize the same batch, randomly selected, with the safety trials? What if adjuvants are 10 times higher or lower in one trial than the next? Are there maximum safe doses established for these ingredients? Are doses beyond the safe dose linked to any autoimmune conditions? What percentage of the maximum safe dose is typically present in a given vaccine? Were the adjuvants sourced or created via the same process in the same facility to the same specification in each of the trials? Are those same production facilities being utilized today? Is there any industry oversight into the conformity of vaccines matching their stated ingredients and no other contaminants? These are all really hard questions. I don't believe the regulatory agencies are doing most of that. I believe it's an FAA/Boeing self-certify situation. You probably didn't hear about how HHS hasn't been performing the safety studies mandated by law. We also know that previous vaccines that are no longer in use have been known to cause autoimmune disorders. It's not scientific fantasy. Edit (Since I can't reply to child): Nobody's talking about LD50. We're talking about how much of an ingredient is safe in a vaccine. It's no stretch to conclude that if X amount of some substance causes an increase in an immune response, to say that Y amount would be harmful, up to and including inducing an autoimmune problem. Since we also know there is a causative relationship between vaccines and autoimmune disorders, then it's fair to investigate why. Unfortunately, we're left here to speculate on the internet. No amount of criticism can be levied towards any vaccine or component of a vaccine, because the authorities haven't taken the initiate to actually study any of this information. Most people assume, naively that they have, but unfortunately, they haven't. When called out, like child comment, it's washed away with "Can't prove a negative." Right.
- black6 6y ago
  > Vaccines are definitively, unequivocally safe. Then why does this exist: https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/index.html
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    The first paragraph answers your question: > Vaccines save lives by preventing disease. > Most people who get vaccines have no serious problems. Vaccines, like any medicines, can cause side effects, but most are very rare and very mild. Some health problems that follow vaccinations are not caused by vaccines. > In very rare cases, a vaccine can cause a serious problem, such as a severe allergic reaction. Unequivocally safe and effective != risk free. Everything has risks, and yes, sometimes you need to compensate people. My house is safe, but I still have insurance.
    - chasd00 6y ago
      wouldn't "Unequivocally safe" imply risk free? ..or at least health risk free?

lifeisstillgood 6y ago

For those, like me, unaware of ASIA syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune/inflammatory_syndrome_induced_by_adjuvants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune/inflammatory_syndro...